by 0xd4f1cab694c4424c4796549edbb9b489789f4df5 (TudaMoon)
Should the problem/opportunity outlined be refined and taken to the next level?
There are grantees (people who received a grant) who have gone for multiple grants without people knowing the result of there grants. There is no community feedback after the grant or vesting contract is completed.
Come up with a way that indicates the history of a grantee that is visible on their governance profile page and when they request a new grant. Also gather community feedback with certain criteria to show community sentiment on the history of their grants.
Target Audience/Customer Base
This is for the DAO members to be able to make better decisions when voting.
Why is this relevant now?
This expense is an investment to assist DAO voters to make better decisions when voting. If DAO members vote for people who have completed grants with satisfactory, then we should see less funds being drained by bad actors.
Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO
View this proposal on Snapshot
@MorrisMustang I think you have something that could help with this
@Tudamoon am interested but how do we come to the final determination. Is this through a vote? Can’t those bad actors just vote to mark the completed grant as SATISF vs UNSAT? There has been so much community sentiment around revoking a specific grant, but they just vote not to revoke it regardless.
The grantees like @bay who just submitted the conclusion of their grant request and IMO is a stellar example of what we should be expecting from a Grantee. In this case I would really like to see a positive badge to show that these folks have earned it. [DAO:5d2a4d7] Community-Led Support for 3D Artists - MESH + MVAW23 - Governance - Decentraland
I was thinking something like this lately.
There are some points I would like to add:
- First, for now, implement a rating system what won’t have any effect, just to test and to show info
- Rather than the whole community, it would be better that a group of experts can evaluate the performance and result of the service or product delivery and its quality. When a grantee ends his grant, this team/committee can evaluate it, even depending on the grant, can have re-evaluations over time, to follow if the project was abandoned after the grant finished.
For a future, as a possible idea for now, it might be interesting that only certain verified addresses can request grants, and that if a new member wants to request a grant, it should pass a verification process, even if it means having to contribute something for free.
Thanks for bringing this up @Tudamoon
I actually had very similar thoughts when I was reading / commenting on some of the other recent proposals around the grants system. The reason I didn’t mention it is that a reputation based system mainly works for recurring grants. It will be tricky for first time grant requests.
But maybe it can be combined with some of the other recent ideas. For example: (first time?) grants can be restricted to a certain percentage of the quarterly budget and bigger grant requests could be broken down to multiple phases. This would still allow first time grantees with great ideas to request enough funding to actually deliver and build their reputation while still reducing the risk for the DAO.
Maybe the focus for this really just needs to be on recurring grants to not overcomplicate things.
But either way: def something worth exploring/discussing/implementing imho.
@Tudamoon I believe this is a pending discussion that the DAO needs to hold in a more structured way, so thanks for bringing it.
Anyway, if this passes and goes through the full bidding and tendering process, we’ll still need a Governance Binding Proposal for this if we want anything to be displayed in the profiles. I’ll suggest you to start a Pre-Proposal-Poll in paralell to this.
If you need help with that, don’t hesistate to contact me.
Agreed this should be a governance proposal and not bidding and tendering, but this is a good discussion.
Voted ‘No.’ This initiative must go through a three-stage governance process that starts with a poll and ends with a binding proposal. This approach is designed to gather Community signaling, foster discussions, and establish implementation paths. It ensures that important governance decisions are made by a representative majority, based on voting power.
Additionally, I am eager to see this particular initiative implemented first:
Integrate UI Parameters to Provide Grantee Details for an Active Grant Proposal
@Tudamoon While I think this is a good initiative, I am going to be busy in the next week and since I have not heard back around my questions I will need to vote Abstain. If it moves forward, I would hope for more discussion.
This is a pitch. Tendering is where all the details are laid out. I am going to look for community feedback before I come up with anything concrete.
Thank you Fehz, there’s no point in proposing governance proposal unless the pitch goes through
There is no point in pitching something there is no path to implement.
Might as well pitch building a rocket to ride to the moon
Create Reputation System for Grantees
This proposal is now in status: REJECTED.
- Yes 39% 4,212,725 VP (105 votes)
- No 45% 4,800,610 VP (7 votes)
- Abstain 16% 1,742,121 VP (11 votes)